ACORN is folding up shop...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/03/22/AR2010032202792.html

Apparently all offices will be shut down by April 1.

Interestingly the organization blames its demise on "partisan operatives and right wing activists".  I say interesting because ACORN itself was a partisan and politically activist organization.

And that is why it does not deserve public funding.  ANY organization which pursues political agendas, (right wing or left wing or even the inscrutable "centrist") should not be getting any public funding.

Nevertheless expect another similar organization to be created, and then funded by the government.

Please, oh please, explain how this was a "partisan" organization.  I really need a LAUGH.

Please, oh please, explain how this was a "partisan" organization.  I really need a LAUGH.




of course it was partisan. First off, the vast majority of the time it lobbied for various Democratic candidates and extremely few Repubs. It advocated all sorts of political positions. They bragged about it all the time. 

Government money should not be spent on organizations that actively engage in lobbying, political protest, etc. I don't want govt funds going to ACORN type orgs any more than I want them funding Tea Party, Log Cabin, or similar republican-leaning entities. 

All of these orgs have the right to promote their causes and political positions. My beef is that they should do it with their own money, not mine.

If you look at the true colors of the GOP during the health care debate, you see that ACORN had to be partisan by default.  Republican politicians made it clear they'd rather see you die of tuberculosis in an alley than raise taxes by a nickel!
::)

of course it was partisan. First off, the vast majority of the time it lobbied for various Democratic candidates and extremely few Repubs. It advocated all sorts of political positions. They bragged about it all the time. 

Government money should not be spent on organizations that actively engage in lobbying, political protest, etc. I don't want govt funds going to ACORN type orgs any more than I want them funding Tea Party, Log Cabin, or similar republican-leaning entities. 

All of these orgs have the right to promote their causes and political positions. My beef is that they should do it with their own money, not mine.


Please then by all means, show me some kind of documentation that this organization violated the campaign laws and used their federal funds for these activities.  I'm sure that will be forth coming.

As for government money going to organizations that engage in political protest I have one for the Republicans, they're called churches.  They don't directly receive money so much as they don't pay anything into the system they criticize.  Sure they're not allowed to by law, but I have yet to see a single offending church lose it's tax exempt status.  There's far more of them than there was ACORN offices.

Please then by all means, show me some kind of documentation that this organization violated the campaign laws and used their federal funds for these activities.  I'm sure that will be forth coming.

As for government money going to organizations that engage in political protest I have one for the Republicans, they're called churches.  They don't directly receive money so much as they don't pay anything into the system they criticize.  Sure they're not allowed to by law, but I have yet to see a single offending church lose it's tax exempt status.  There's far more of them than there was ACORN offices.


Those churches take Christ's name in vain every time they endorse capitalism, let alone the GOP. 
::)

Please then by all means, show me some kind of documentation that this organization violated the campaign laws and used their federal funds for these activities.  I'm sure that will be forth coming.

As for government money going to organizations that engage in political protest I have one for the Republicans, they're called churches.  They don't directly receive money so much as they don't pay anything into the system they criticize.  Sure they're not allowed to by law, but I have yet to see a single offending church lose it's tax exempt status.  There's far more of them than there was ACORN offices.


As to the violation of campaign laws, here is an article regarding ACORN in Ohio, which settled out of court on a campaign fraud case.

http://www.startribune.com/nation/87377937.html

In the settlement, ACORN basically took the "death penalty" and surrendered its license.  So I'm kinda thinking they were guilty as hell or else they woulda fought it. And they certainly could have found lawyers more than willing to take their case... if they had one.

I see that you and I agree on something.  Tax-exempt organizations should not be allowed to be running political advocacy campaigns as their tax exemption constitutes federal funding.

Check out the following link, that shows what sorts of things the Tax Exempt ACORN has (well, had) been working on http://www.acorn.org/index.php?id=12341.  Again, I have no problem with them advocating whatever position they want.  But once you start subsidizing via tax exemptions then you're using my tax dollars to fund it.

Note that I am not a very big fan of the nonprofit community.  While there are many fine nonprofits which are truly "charities" and worthy of their cause, there are far more nonprofits which are scams to either provide jobs for their management, or to get money shoveled to them by politicians whom they support.

Churches should be paying property taxes just like any other property owner.  The proliferation of "nonprofits" is a huge contributor to financial problems in my home town of Picksburgh, where about 30% of the real estate is untaxable because it is owned by nonprofits.

Note that I am not a very big fan of the nonprofit community.  While there are many fine nonprofits which are truly "charities" and worthy of their cause, there are far more nonprofits which are scams to either provide jobs for their management, or to get money shoveled to them by politicians whom they support.
  http://www.inthe00s.com/smile/13/icon_thumright.gifhttp://www.inthe00s.com/smile/15/usa2.gif

Churches should be paying property taxes just like any other property owner.  The proliferation of "nonprofits" is a huge contributor to financial problems in my home town of Picksburgh, where about 30% of the real estate is untaxable because it is owned by nonprofits.


I believe in the separation of church and state.  Thus, I would like the churches to hold up their end of the bargain and stay out of the affairs of state.  As long they do so, I have no problem with their tax exempt status.  If they want a voice in politics, let the pay the price of admission, as George Carlin said. 

On the other hand, their are moral matters the church has fought the state on, most notably in favor of Civil Rights in the 1960s.  Many churches feel banning abortion is a civil rights issue.  I don't happen to agree with them, but that's where the argument gets complicated. 
http://www.inthe00s.com/smile/12/homework.gif

I believe in the separation of church and state.  Thus, I would like the churches to hold up their end of the bargain and stay out of the affairs of state.  As long they do so, I have no problem with their tax exempt status.  If they want a voice in politics, let the pay the price of admission, as George Carlin said. 



There's the rub, though.  Any religion worth its salt is GOING TO take issue with various political subjects, and actively pursue its beliefs.  So from a practical perspective I don't see how tax exemption makes sense, since that means that tax dollars are subsidizing the pursuit of political beliefs.

This is also why I am completely opposed to government providing funding to election campaigns.  Politicians steal enough money from the government once they get into office, they don't need our help to get there.